Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: The Food Chain Argument

  1. #1
    6th Spice Girl Cheezcake Spice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    9

    Default The Food Chain Argument

    Holla! I haven't been around here in a while, and vegans, let me tell you, I've missed this place!

    So, I've been a vegan now for nearly two months (woot, woot!!), and, of course, every single person must ask the same question of "So...why are you vegan?" I don't have a problem with it, in fact, I love it because it gives me an oppertunity to discuss my lifestyle where in other situations I'd be pegged for preaching! But I always come up short when it comes to the famous Food Chain Arguement! In fact, it's so famous I've capitilized it!

    So I ask you, no I beg you, what are your common responses to those who say the Food Chain is a natural process?

  2. #2
    :) cornishdreadhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kernow
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    Quote Cheezcake Spice View Post

    So I ask you, no I beg you, what are your common responses to those who say the Food Chain is a natural process?
    Well, tell them that the way animals are mass-farmed, overcrowded, have their young taken away from them too soon, and forced to mass produce their product from humans, is NOT NATURAL. In fact, it's not even natural for humans to drink cow's milk. We are the only species that drinks the milk from another species.

  3. #3
    6th Spice Girl Cheezcake Spice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    Quote cornishdreadhead View Post
    We are the only species that drinks the milk from another species.
    YES!!! I have said that to so many people and then from there they turn instantly sour and snap, crackle, pop! Great minds think a like! Har, har...I've also used the massed produced arguement myself as well. I feel like I'm missing something though. I always end up shutting down in arguements!

  4. #4
    :) cornishdreadhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kernow
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    Quote Cheezcake Spice View Post
    YES!!! I have said that to so many people and then from there they turn instantly sour and snap, crackle, pop! Great minds think a like! Har, har...I've also used the massed produced arguement myself as well. I feel like I'm missing something though. I always end up shutting down in arguements!
    They get mad because they realize that you're right and can't deal with that. They're pissed off because they're so sure of themselves. Then you come back with a intelligent, factual argument, and they can't handle it.

  5. #5
    Russ
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    My response would be someway along these lines ...

    If someone wants to go out and kill an animal themselves and eat it, that's one thing ... (though I don't condone it, nature is brutal and there's no getting away from the fact that non-human animals do 'naturally' tear each other to pieces all the time) ... but there's nothing 'natural' about factory farming and pumping animals full of antibiotics for the inevitable sickness and growth hormones, force-feeding, stacking them in cages and then cutting them up into pieces to be frozen ... and then picked up at one's convenience from the supermarket .... unless one considers capitalism to be the 'natural' order, but that could only be used in a very contrived sense ... I think by most peoples definition where we begin organising into social/economic communities is where 'nature' ends ...

    Stress the difference between 'natural' and 'conventional' ... ask them if they think it's 'natural' to enslave people of inferior races or treat women as property ... or if these were just conventions of past epochs ... which were certainly considered to be the 'natural order' of things at the time. Much like today .. how is it any 'less' natural to eat a plant-based diet than an animal one, even if, for instance the animals you were to eat were NOT battery farmed?

    The food chain is obviously a natural process ... that's why as vegans we subsist on a more 'natural' diet. There's nothing implicit in the idea of a food chain that suggests humans should be omnivores rather than herbivores ... really neither could be said to be more 'natural' if we could take out animal domestication (for instance, a gatherer vs. a hunter seem equally 'natural' to me) ... some will say that the 'original humans' were vegan but I do think the jury is out on this one and even if it isn't, only holds as much water as the arguments for other (unsavoury) things humans used to do ...

    Which is why this hypothetical argument (hypothetical because I'm assuming the people you're having the argument with aren't about to stop buying frozen meat and killing wild animals themselves) tends to lead onto a more realistic one about what is BETTER for our bodies . The jury is certainly not out on this one. Good health is much more easily attainable, to say the least, on a plant-based diet. Anyone who tells you different may just be going wrong in the head from all the rBST ...

  6. #6
    Russ
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    And I'd add what CDH said about -forcing- animals to breed (calling it by its true name also has the advantage of alienating non-vegans ..) and drinking the milk / eating the menses of other species ... sick when you think about it, and makes you wonder how it managed to 'catch on' ...

    If they believe there is a 'natural order' to life on Earth then how does stealing the milk from another species (which is intended for the young of the mother that is forced to give it up) fit into this 'grand scheme'?

    The usual REACTION to this in my experience, is that they consider humans as 'more important anyway', and we're back to square one ...

  7. #7
    missbettie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oak View, California, United S
    Posts
    1,650

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    And the only species that drinks milk past infancy.
    "i'm rejecting my reflection, cause i hate the way it judges me."

  8. #8
    Sluggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    290

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    My response to the food chain argument is that it isn't so much a chain as a pyramid. Consider a carnivorous group - say, a pride of lions. It takes massive herds of wildebeest, zebras, gazelles, etc to maintain one small family of lions, and an even more massive amount of grassland to support all those herds of wildebeest, zebras, gazelles, etc.

    The big problem with humans wanting be at the top of the food pyramid is that there are 6 billion of us. If all humans ate as much animal produce as we do in the West, the Earth would need to be considerably bigger than it is to support all of us.

    Conversely, if we all turned to a plant-based diet, we would have agricultural land to spare, and could start re-planting forests rather than burning them down.

  9. #9
    broccoli love bugaboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    We aren't equipped with claws and sharp enough teeth to be on top of the food chain.

    Consider this. If you were dropped out in the middle of the Serengeti, with no weapons, and were confronted by a lion, who would kill who? The man/woman with no means to defend themselves or the lion who is well-equipped to get the job done. We are not on top of the food chain.

    I think, bears, lions, tigers, wolves, coyotes, hyenas, sharks, etc. would be higher up than us.
    Do the Vegan Boogie!!

  10. #10
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    I vote for the great white shark. They eat surfers and swimmers; its all natural after all! And while we're at it, let's bring back rape, murder, and slavery. Those are all natural things as well and they all occur in other species, too. [Certain ants enslave other ants, in case you didn't know.]

    Every time I here the words "the food chain" I snicker because it instantly reminds me of this Simpsons video, "Meat and You: Partners in Freedom":

    http://tubearoo.com/articles/14754/Simpsons_Meat.html

    [This used to be on youtube but I couldn't find it so that's why I used this other link.]

  11. #11
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    [Dear regular members: you've probably heard me babble away about these things before - this response is mainly meant for occasional visitors who are interested in vegan views on the food chain-theory...]

    Quote Cheezcake Spice View Post

    So I ask you, no I beg you, what are your common responses to those who say the Food Chain is a natural process?
    My first response would be to ask them why they think we are at the top of the food chain. If you'd ask a bear or a tiger if he thinks he would be 'below' humans in that food chain/pyramid concept, he'd just raise an eyebrow.

    I don't think this is about chain or pyramid or factory farming; it's about violence and lack of respect for the fact that the pain an animal feels is just as important for that animal as our pain is for us.

    The are many large, strong animals that are plant eaters. An elephant, moose or horse isn't on top of smaller, less strong animals in an imaginary food chain, because they don't rely on killing other living beings for food. They don't want it, they don't need it, and since you talk about 'natural process' - they aren't 'natural' killers. Like us, they aren't equipped with what we'd need in order to claim that nature as provided us with what it takes to run faster than a deer, fly after other birds or swim after fish. ANd just like us - or at least, me - they don't look at other animals as food, so a discussion about cows, sheep or birds isn't even a relevant topic if 'food chain' is being discussed.

    The major, human/ego-centric 'argument' some people use is that we are capable of killing by using our brains, by making weapons and tools that can kill. But that has nothing to do with being 'natural killers', because being capable of causing harm to the environment or being capable of producing a weapon doesn't mean that 'we're meant to do it' or that it's a natural process. If humans aren't natural killers, how can animals be part of a natural food chain process for humans?

    Nature isn't brutal. There are brutal elements in nature, and there are animals who kill other animals in brutal ways, but that doesn't mean that humans are 'meant to be' brutal or that killing is should be part of how we provide ourselves with something to eat. There's no reason we should copy a tiger, a lion - or even an elephant.

    Vegetarianism was born centuries before factory farming existed, and long before the human population was as large as it is now. It wasn't a reaction against certain ways of killing animals or keeping them in captivity. I think the problem someone would have with defending that we are 'meant to' catch and kill animals is that there's no reason we should do it. Since none of us want violence, and don't need to be violent, why would we make up a theory about being 'meant to be' violent in the first place?

    I guess I'm not more interested in food chain or food pyramid theories than a horse or an elephant. They eat plants, they don't need to eat anything else, and don't have the bodies of 'natural killers' anyway - just like humans.

    When talking about food, we should IMHO focus on nutrients, not on theories about pyramids or chains!

    Some say that if we go back a few million years, and look at our ancestors, they had bodies that were different from ours... but - so what? Humans have had ancestors that were eating animals, and we've also had ancestors that were plant eaters. If someone claim that I have had relatives that lived a million years ago that were capable of catching, cutting up and eating a hare without manmade tools, my response would only be 'not interested'... Our ancestors had ancestors that were plant eaters, and lots of them didn't seem to be interested in looking back another million years either.

    Maybe someone even could come up with a convincing theory that we are in the midst of a long process transitioning from being natural omnivores towards being perfect herbivores? I don't know, I haven't seen such a theory yet, but if I had, I'd rather be part of a process that changes the evolution of homo sapiens in a non-violent direction instead of clinging to what someone insists was a natural diet for humans one or two million years ago.






    Our so called canine teeth are as un-canine as they get, and I can't see any reason to reverse history and evolution and try to make humans look and behave the way many/some of us have looked/behaved in the past.

    For the first time in history, knowledge about plant based nutrition is available almost everywhere, and the human race don't have any excuse to ignore the fact that we have no valid reasons to kill animals anymore.


    Nutritionists who fanatically defend use of animal products still insist that humans should eat a lot more plants, and less meat than they do today, and with the current size of the human population, there's nothing natural about the food chain anyway, so even if the discussion about the naturalness of killing animals for food would have been relevant a few thousand years ago, it isn't today.

    Plus: Even if people would claim that it is 'natural' for today's humans to eat meat and drink milk form another species, this doesn't automatically mean that it's not natural to live on a plant based diet.

    Some will claim that humans wouldn't have been where we are today if we wouldn't have been eating meat, and maybe they are right. Maybe the human species wouldn't have suffered so much from cancer, arthritis and heart disease (and lots of digestive and other diseases associated with use of animal products) if we would have lived on a plant based diet. Maybe we'd have an intellect that would be in balance with our natural unwillingness to kill and harm. Maybe the link between intelligence and emotions would have been stronger, and maybe our brainy brains would have been smaller to?

    Who knows... but since I'm not proud of what humans constantly do to animals, each other, our own health and the environment, the 'where we are today' doesn't really sound convincing to me. Unlike what some people seem to think, pieces of meat, fish, birds or milk never makes it to the brain. What we eat is broken down into antioxidants, phyto-chemicals, vitamins and minerals before any of it reaches the brain, and since we can get all the nutrients our brain and the rest of our body needs without hurting any animals animals at all, the discussion about natural processes, food chains and pyramids is over for me. It actually never started, because like most other humans, I never decided to eat meat, fish or milk, I just ate what I was offered.

    Some people (who never decided to eat animal products in the first place, and don't have any good reasons to do it or to think that an omnivorous diet is the most healthy one) are reluctant about going vegan unless it can be proved that it's the most healthy of all diets or because they 'haven't decided yet'. Some also dislike sticking out of the crowd, and fear 'difficult questions', but personally, I guess I'm probably a more-than-average curious person: I tend to be the person who is asking questions. If I hear theories about chains or pyramids or eating this or that because some else ate it a million years ago (or an hour ago), I have so many questions that they often forget to ask me any, which probably is why I rarely hear these questions...

    The bottom line is that we have nothing to defend. We want to cause as little harm as possible, and we're not the ones that should be asked critical questions about why we don't want to harm others, or the environment. The question is actually quite silly. Looking at all the damage use of animal products means for animals, human health and the planet, there are others out there who deserve the critical questions.

  12. #12

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    I generally respond by stating, doing my best not to be an asshole, that their question is a logical fallacy.

    What is "natural", or deemed natural isn't equivalent with 1) what is ethical or right or moral, and 2) what is natural isn't equivalent with health or fitness or success.

    Then I argue that regardless of "natural" or unnatural, a vegan diet is easy to thrive on, cheap, accessible, and healthy. I use myself and my kids and wife as examples.

    Then, I state that consuming animals is just unnessary, just as wearing a fur coat is unnessasary, or having an iPod is unnessasary. However, wearing fur, or eating animals is unlike an iPod in that the first things directly contribute to the death and suffering of an animal that was manipulated by humans to exist for the sole purpose of something unnessesary.

    So, I really had no choice, as a person who is concerned with useless suffering, but to do the easy thing and go vegan.

    Natural or unnatural has nothing to do with anything. Last time I checked, it's still unethical to cause unnessesary suffering on humans or animals regardless of how "natural" hurting people or animals might seem at the moment.
    context is everything

  13. #13
    elve
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    I was treated to this classic argument this evening by my ex-husband Apparently tribes, all over the world, yes tribes, and all through history, there are tribes everywhere (and I'm like ) that NEED yes NEEED meat!

    And when I said but milk? what's natural about drinking another animal's milk? He said it was no different to smoking, as that was wrong but people still do it (help me - my brain hurts )

    I said but smoking is about killing tobacco leaves - drinking milk and eating meat is about killing other animals....He looked beaten as let's face it, his theory had a few holes in it - twas amusing though - I'm glad I'm divorced

  14. #14
    IRBFUIPTHITCS Fungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    161

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    There is a lot of vegan tribes and they have been so for a long time ..
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe-Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    elve
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    Quote Fungus View Post
    There is a lot of vegan tribes and they have been so for a long time ..
    I'll tell him you said so

  16. #16
    boatsteem1
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    Well, meat is a natural part of our diet, just like it is for all other apes (save for one species). There is absolutely no doubt about that. But the answer to your question is still easy.

    We are 6,651,830,393 people on this earth.

  17. #17
    boatsteem1
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Arguement

    This is an answer to Korn's post. I've read your post and to me it feels like you're trying to hide the truth.

    We don't have canines because we have tools to kill with instead. We don't have sharp molars (the cutting teeth on the side of the jaw that lions/carnivores use to chew meat) because we cook our food and have been doing that for 10 000 years+. This makes it a lot easier to chew and so we're not in need of these teeth.

    If we for some reason did not evolve to eat meat (your text does not necessarily incline this but your pictures do) then a lot, lot more people would obviously choose not to eat it. For most people, removal of meat from the dinner plate equals the end of the world. At least half of vegans/vegetarians I've known over the past six years (30+ people) have started eating meat again - because they crave it.

    We need to be realistic. Everybody loves meat (symbolically speaking). It's a natural part of our diet. We don't need it, but it's a nice addition of protein, and to some degree energy. This is why your brain tells you that meat is tasty - because it is how we evolved.

    With that said: we don't require it. And there are good enough reasons for abstaining from it. Just the fact that we spread everywhere and kill hundreds of millions of years of evolution in species, subspecies, variations, et cetera, is one great reason in my view. See my post above and consider if it is natural.

  18. #18
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    Well, meat is a natural part of our diet, just like it is for all other apes (save for one species). There is absolutely no doubt about that. But the answer to your question is still easy.

    We are 6,651,830,393 people on this earth.
    I'm not an ape, I'm not going to sit in trees and masturbate or eat insects or let their behavior define my menu ever. Would you eat insects because another species eat insects? I know you kill insects, but do you eat them? If ape behavior defines what's natural for you, wouldn't that be a natural thing to do? And: What does current size of the human population do in this discussion?

    Quote mazatael View Post
    We don't have canines because we have tools to kill with instead. We don't have sharp molars (the cutting teeth on the side of the jaw that lions/carnivores use to chew meat) because we cook our food and have been doing that for 10 000 years+. This makes it a lot easier to chew and so we're not in need of these teeth.
    This statement already assumes that Homo Sapiens, as pr. 2008, is 'meant to' eat meat. Sure, we can use tools to kill, but that doesn't mean that we should kill, or that it's 'natural'. We can be violent against each other, against women, against children, and we are still equipped with a body that can strangle other humans. That doesn't say anything about the naturalness of strangling or use of violence.

    There's no link logical link between 'we are capable of' or 'we were capable of' on one side, and 'we are meant to' or 'this is natural just because we can do it'. If you can prove that we are 'meant to' eat meat, and that we are not 'meant to' live on plants only, you can discuss if the tools needed to kill animals. If not, I don't think a discussion about various ways of killing animals is relevant. Do you agree that it's not 'natural' to bomb Vietnam with napalm bombs just because we are capable of doing it? If not, how does the link between 'capable of' and 'natural' occur? It's a weird topic, because we are not capable of killing using 'natural' methods, we need man made tools, but still.... I'm curious about your answer.

    Do you really suggest that it's natural for humans to drink mother's milk throughout life, from another species, just because it's currently considered 'normal' in our part of the world?

    Here are some common ways to use the word 'natural'.

    If we for some reason did not evolve to eat meat (your text does not necessarily incline this but your pictures do) then a lot, lot more people would obviously choose not to eat it.
    That's your theory, and is based on a logic similar to 'more people would avoid dairy products if we didn't evolve to drink dairy products', or 'less countries would be involved in wars if we didn't evolve to kill other humans'.


    For most people, removal of meat from the dinner plate equals the end of the world.
    Frankly, I'm not interested in discussing statics. Most people raised by meat eating parents in a meat eating society may see it the way you do, but most people raised by vegetarian in a vegetarian society don't. Muslims, Hindus and Christians get children who normally become Muslims, Hindus and Christians, which proves nothing about which religion is 'right', just like the fact that people raised to eat meat see 'removal of meat from the dinner plate equals the end of the world' says nothing about 'the truth' about eating meat, which you feel that I try to hide.


    At least half of vegans/vegetarians I've known over the past six years (30+ people) have started eating meat again - because they crave it.
    Yes, and when I moved to USA in a lacto-vegetarian period of my life, I craved brown, Norwegian goat cheese in the beginning, which nobody but Norwegians crave. It tells nothing about pyramids or chains or the naturalness of goat cheese. If a person grow up with eg. milk as his main source of calcium and protein, and stops using milk, and do not start to use other sources for calcium and milk, he will 'crave' milk. He may even 'crave' milk even if he does start to 'program' himself that he can get calcium and protein from plants. Your friends' cravings is as invalid argument for meat as en ex-smokers craving for tobacco is.

    We need to be realistic. Everybody loves meat (symbolically speaking).
    What does 'symbolically speaking' mean in this context? I don't 'love meat', not in a symbolic or any other way. If I see a movie or watch TV and see someone cutting up meat, the very look of it disgusts me.

    It's a natural part of our diet
    .
    So far, you haven't written anything that suggest that it is...

    We don't need it
    How can something we don't need be a 'natural part of our diet'?


    it's a nice addition of protein
    No, it's an ugly, hard to digest, environmental-UNfriendly, unnecessary, cruel way to get something we easily can get from other sources. There's nothing nice about killing animals at all.

    This is why your brain tells you that meat is tasty - because it is how we evolved.
    My brain doesn't tell me that meat is tasty, so your 'argument' drops dead before the first half of that sentence is finished. In spite of having been raised on a meat based diet, my brain told me that a plant based diet is tasty. I think nobody - as on 'not one single person' - that has studied human behavior and how habits are made will support the idea that 'if they think meat, milk, vodka, coke, pizza or marshmallows are tasty, it's because how humans 'have evolved'. Most people like what their parents gave them when they were kids, and this is probably true for cannibals as well. Maybe cannibal kids even 'evolved as cannibals' over several generations, and maybe their brains told them that human meat is tasty, but that tells us nothing about 'human meat is a natural part of the human diet'. Nada.

    You have already told us that part of your job has been to capture/kill animals in traps, and that you work with carnivorous animals professionally and maybe you have spent so much time with these animals that your 'brain tells you that meat is tasty'? Please have a look at the thread about the dog girl. She was raised among dogs, ate what they did, and in spite of having spent only a few years of her life with dogs, she still longs back to the life with them. She is barking like a real dog. Does her craving for this lifestyle mean that it's 'natural' for humans to bark, or eat dog food, or to crawl on arms and legs? A human can be influenced to a lot of weird stuff even in less than 10 years, so your ideas about cravings or signals from the brain telling you this or that just skips about everything we know about human psychology. Psychologists disagree about lots of stuff, but they all agree that there is such a thing as habits, and basically about how they are created. It takes a few years to 'convert' a human to behave like a wild animal, and it takes a few weeks to train a dog not to pee on your carpet, but please don't use this to prove that we should use cravings (that some people who change diet have, even if they change form one kind of meat based diet to another kind of meat based diet) as a means to prove that 'meat is a natural part of our diet' or that 'there is absolutely no doubt about that'.

    When you say that meat is a natural part of our diet, what do you mean be 'natural'? And... do you suggest that eating a vegan diet is not natural?

  19. #19
    broccoli love bugaboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    Quote mazatael View Post
    Well, meat is a natural part of our diet, just like it is for all other apes (save for one species). There is absolutely no doubt about that. But the answer to your question is still easy.

    We are 6,651,830,393 people on this earth.
    Mazatael, I don't understand your argument...but look what I found:


    "Chickens are the world's most populous birds. With a population of over 8 billion, there are more chickens than humans on Earth! Indeed, if we were to divide the entire chicken population equally among humans, each human being would get about 1.25 chickens."

    Source--http://edhelper.com/AnimalReadingCom...ion_111_1.html

    I don't know how reliable the source is but if the website is all about teaching kids then I guess there's some merit.
    Do the Vegan Boogie!!

  20. #20
    erfoud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Sebastián (Spain)
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    Quote Cheezcake Spice View Post

    So I ask you, no I beg you, what are your common responses to those who say the Food Chain is a natural process?
    Iīd say this "Food chain" argument fits into the naturalist fallacy, which implies that everything labelled as "natural" must be good.
    Well, letīs have a look at the human especies....Whatīs left natural in us? Our social organisation? Politics? A microwave oven, a fridge a modern home, electricity, the cinema....are they natural? The thing is, we have broken away from our natural origins, we have concocted an amazingly artificial way of life, based upon highly sophisticated technology, which pervades in all our daily actions, so it strikes me as comical to try to support the purity of our nature just in the food field. As a unique species that has diverted from nature in many fields, our greatest quality is (or rather, should be) our extraordinary capacity for empathy. Letīs let the food chain argument for the rest of the creatures, who have no choice. We have

  21. #21
    IRBFUIPTHITCS Fungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    161

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    That leaves the question - what is natural?
    By some definitions wouldnt everything be natural?
    Or are we comparing 'natural' to the 'cave men' ?, other species ?
    ...
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe-Albert Einstein

  22. #22
    VeganDaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    138

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    The food chain argument is stupid, because without tools we wouldn't be at the top. And we might be clever enough to make tools to rise to the top, but we are also clever enough to philosophise about the implications and ethics of our diet and clever enough to find out scientifically that consuming meat and dairy is not beneficial to our health.

    We can also compare our teeth and digestive tract to other animals and see that it is comparable to plant eaters, not carnivores. The other 'omnivores', apes, that people use to suggest we too should be omnivores rarely eat non-vegetable matter (less than 5% of diet I believe) and when they do it's usually insects! Ick

  23. #23
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    ... Ya, scavengers and parasites ARE a natural part of the Food Chain; I'd rather be vegan, though (insert smug-smilie here).
    Last edited by pat sommer; Feb 27th, 2008 at 03:05 PM. Reason: clarity
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  24. #24
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    This clip hopefully ends the suggestions that we humans should eat insects (or other animal products) or do anything at all because chimpanzees (or some other animals) do it. There's no reason we should copy the behavior of certain groups of animals, or the behavior of any animals at all.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBuk91phkI


    [Warning: you may not want to watch this if you're eating or drinking right now!]
    Last edited by Korn; Mar 1st, 2008 at 09:38 AM. Reason: Added warning!

  25. #25
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument



    I think I'll definitely pass on that sandwich now.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater London
    Posts
    385

    Default Re: The Food Chain Argument

    As far as the evolution argument goes I'd rather rely on what my evolved brain is telling me rather than the rather arbitrary shape of my teeth.
    From Sutton, Surrey, (or Greater London when they want to fleece me for the Olympics)

Similar Threads

  1. How to win an argument with a meat-eater
    By DancingWillow in forum Things meat eaters say
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Sep 6th, 2012, 11:51 AM
  2. Best argument for omnivorous lifestyle
    By Klytemnest in forum Things meat eaters say
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: Aug 15th, 2008, 07:21 PM
  3. Food Chain
    By Mystic in forum VEGAN FOOD
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Dec 6th, 2004, 05:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •